kevindoohan.com

click for larger version

Conventional marketing is what companies like ConAgra Foods excel at.  The process evolved out of necessity.  If you're going to spend millions of dollars broadcasting (literally) the message out to your audience, the strategy and message both have to be right.  You work extensively on strategy.  You research, and research, and research until you believe you understand the sweet spot where brand strength and consumer desire meet.  Next you're working on message development.  You research and research and research to develop and test messages and creative treatments prior to a big launch where you get the message out at scale with big dollar spends.  Later (much later) you look back and see how you did.

As a digital marketer,  you might think I shun conventional marketing....no way.  Digital marketers ignore conventional marketing at their peril.  One of the greatest things about being a digital marketer at ConAgra Foods is that I've been able to learn from the experience of the expert conventional marketers in the company.  Conventional marketing knowledge is critical for effective digital marketing.  Without it here's what can happen:  All the "little insights" and "little strategies" are not connected to a big insight and strategy.  That's not a good thing.

So here's the deal...  Unconventional marketing rocks.  It really leverages the strengths of digital marketing including flexibility, rapid implementation, and the ability to immediately, precisely measure results.  The rapid interations you can create and learn from with digital are incredibly valuable and can accelerate success.  I've believed in rapid iteration and the necessity of many "small bites" in a marketing program for a long time.  I even recently blogged about how cool Seth Godin's point was in his "One Swell Foop" post.  BUT make sure your digital work is all aligned with a sound BIG strategy that is based in solid, well-researched consumer insights.  If you don't apply some conventional thinking to your unconventional marketing process, you may find yourself following flawed little strategies moving quickly through multiple iterations to nowhere.  That doesn't do anyone any good.

Seth's onto the idea here: Seth's Blog: Ads are the new online tip jar.

Not clicking on ads shouldn't be a badge of honor. It's silly and it hurts the sites you love. Ads are what make the internet possible. Clicking on them is a way to thank the publishers of the content enjoy.

Weird to see this post from Seth and compare it to this one on July 21 where he says the internet is the first mass marketing medium that isn't supported by ads. I'm more aligned with the direction in the 8/22 post. Ads are important. Supporting advertisers is important. Especially if you want to continue to have a robust, enjoyable online experience.

Check out this piece by Randall Rothenberg at the IAB blog: The Fed's Web Takeover - IABlog At first, I thought it was a little melodramatic and overstated but after further consideration, Randall's observations have me concerned. The consequences could be serious if we don't pay attention now.

The reason the internet is awesome is because it delivers what we want when we want it and relevancy of the online experience continues to improve over time... If marketers and publishers cannot use data to improve the experience, it will hurt EVERYONE. If the government imposes irrational regulations on online advertising, it will hurt EVERYONE.

Consumers will not be served. Try it. Clear your cookies and disable cookies for the future. Want to track your favorite stocks? You can't. Like seeing sports ads for your favorite teams like I do? Forget it. You're going to start seeing mascara ads whether you want them or not because the advertisers and publishers cannot tell what you like.

Advertisers will lose. Waste will increase. As David Verklin said at the last iMedia summit I attended, "What we want to do is put dog food ads in front of dog food owners." It's that simple. It's not evil. Without use of the data we are all going to get dog food ads whether we own dogs or not and that's bad for all.

Publishers will lose. The niche sites that are thriving today will fail tomorrow because they will have a tougher time finding consumers who are interested and they will have a tough time winning ad revenue because of challenges for ad networks who provide them with ads..

Consumers, advertisers, and publishers all lose with government regulation. If what Randall says is true: "...the call for regulation grows bewilderingly louder, from elected officials who have specified no harm and conducted little research. " then we need to do more to make the true impact of regulation clear to the decision makers.

As a card carrying digital advertiser, I cannot agree with Seth Godin's latest when he says: "This is the first mass marketing medium ever that isn't supported by ads." That's just wrong.

There are plenty of sites out there that aren't supported by ads, but they're going away if they don't find a way to generate revenue. Three ways to generate revenue: 1) advertising 2) sell data or sell insights gained from analysis of data 3) consumers pay for the product/service

Consumers time, and time, and time again have indicated they prefer the first choice: Free content or tools in return for accepting advertising. If this is the choice (and it is), then participants in the medium (the internet) *do* need to please advertisers or advertisers won't participate.

Of course, any venture that doesn't please consumers will fail regardless of whether it is online or not. If television shows suck, consumers don't view them and advertisers don't buy the shows. If newspapers print uninteresting stories, consumers may choose other papers or mediums. And if internet companies don't serve the consumer, they suffer a similar fate. Consequences of not satisfying consumers are amplified on the internet because switching cost is so low but most internet properties must do the dance. Serving consumers first *and* providing value for advertisers it is an "and" not an "or".